TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

What is the line between being a girlfriend and being a wife?

Thyra-
May 1, 2020
107 upvotes
/r/RedPillWomen

Part of using the red pill dating strategy is to marry someone who values you as the woman you are and to keep that marriage healthy and happy. Something I've noticed though is women acting like a wife when they are only a girlfriend which only gives a man more reason not to marry. What do you think is the difference between being a girlfriend and being a wife is? What behaviors should a wife do but not a girlfriend as to not give too much to a man who hasnt fully committed to her yet? I am sure there are many different answers for different women even within this community. As someone who is a girlfriend and not quite a wife Im interested in what you ladies think.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/RedPillWomen.

/r/RedPillWomen archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title What is the line between being a girlfriend and being a wife?
Author Thyra-
Upvotes 107
Comments 103
Date May 1, 2020 7:53 AM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit /r/RedPillWomen
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/RedPillWomen/what-is-the-line-between-being-a-girlfriend-and.658465
https://theredarchive.com/post/658465
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/gbdzan/what_is_the_line_between_being_a_girlfriend_and/
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by Thyra-

Being feminine and well covered at work

43 upvotes
February 24, 2020
/r/RedPillWomen

A couple things my bf has done to really show he's the one.

15 upvotes
April 28, 2020
/r/RedPillWomen

Do I compromise? Or put my foot down?

13 upvotes
February 10, 2020
/r/RedPillWomen

How can I be more graceful with my negative feelings towards being left out?

10 upvotes
May 5, 2020
/r/RedPillWomen

How do I support my boyfriend even if I dont think its going to pan out?

8 upvotes
June 21, 2020
/r/RedPillWomen

New to RP and was wondering how you guys feel about wearing clothing at home?

4 upvotes
January 12, 2020
/r/RedPillWomen

How can I be more feminine and more productive during the work week?

1 upvotes
January 14, 2020
/r/RedPillWomen

He cant tell me if its worth it

1 upvotes
February 4, 2020
/r/RedPillWomen
Comments

[–]onlysomewanttofly99 points100 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

50something year old male with an 18 year old daughter perspective here.

The lines really should NOT BE BLURRY.

Marriage is a legally recognized, binding contract that conveys a wide range of legal rights and responsibilities.

Marriage was never about feelings or love etc. it is a legal construct to officially recognize rights and responsibilities as they pertain to parentage, property, financial instruments, credit, debt, inheritance, liabilities etc etc etc.

When you are single, you have your own property, your own financial instruments, your own line of credit, your own debt etc etc.

When you become married, all of those things become legally combined and each shares the same assets and debts and liabilities in the eyes of the law.

Your spouse runs up the debt, you will be held accountable in the eyes of the law.

Your spouse gets sick, you will be charged with handling their affairs and seeing to their care.

They get drunk and run a school bus full of kids off a cliff, you will become entangled in the lawsuits.

So the bottom line here is do not become legally entangled with someone if they are not legally, financially and parentally responsible and solvent.

By the same token do not engage yourself with them legally, financially or parent ally without marriage as a legal and financial protection.

In other words do not buy or own joint property without the force of the law behind you.

Do not have children without a legal marital contract protecting your parental rights and assuring mutual support of the child.

Do not purchase a house or property without the legal protection of marriage to where someone could walk away leaving you with the debt and obligation.

Marriage is legal and not romance.

If someone is wanting to combine assets and procure joint properties, assets and parentage, then that is probably past the time to seriously discuss marriage so that those joint ventures are legally recognized and protected.

Take the feelings and romance out of it and view it as the legal instrument that it is.

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for posting this, this is exactly the perspective I would have liked to add.

Marriage is the most serious legal commitment you will ever make. As a result, it comes with a bunch of protections to regularise your situation if you split up.

None of this applies if you are long term cohabiting partners.

Know your rights before you make any decisions.

[–]teaandtalk5 Stars3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Depends where you're living, of course - in my country, long-term cohabitating partners DO have some of those legal protections.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I have a couple of fairly specific things in mind that are domestic violence related. But, there’s another fine illustration of why you should always know your rights in your own jurisdiction.

No one was ever well served by being unaware of their legal rights.

[–]teaandtalk5 Stars0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ain't that the truth.

[–]lubbyl7860 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Great comment!!!

[–]h3rm3s030 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This helps on so many levels. My mistake was that I thought about it as a romance.

[–]teaandtalk5 Stars101 points102 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

The lines are quite personal, especially if you're talking about live-in boyfriends/girlfriends. It's very blurry if you're living together.

​

For me, I wouldn't buy a house, share significant finances, or have children with someone to whom I am not married. I probably also wouldn't provide too much input on major life decisions - eg if a boyfriend wanted to move cities or change jobs or have a medical procedure, my input would be much more general and impersonal than it would be with someone to whom I was married. Conversely, I would not sacrifice too much of myself for a boyfriend. I'd never quit a job for a boyfriend, or quit school. Especially if you're making economic sacrifices (eg quitting work to be a stay-at-home partner), I'd caution you against doing that with someone who's not your spouse.

[–]Knnchwa11 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is perfect. I have been living with my boyfriend for a year and a half, since before I discovered RP. He moved from upstate down to NYC because he can work pretty much anywhere. He wants to move back upstate but I told him I couldn’t do it unless we were married. I have a business here that’s very profitable and although I could live upstate and come down 3 days a week, and although it would actually be a wonderful lifestyle, I’m not going to uproot myself without that commitment. I have spent some time wondering whether I did the right thing to have him move in, but he seems like he’s become open to marriage. It’s just a matter of me deciding I’m sure he’s the one I want to marry.

[–]Draculas_Wife32 points33 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

In more traditional times, the difference basically was no sex before marriage, no living together before marriage and no shared finances before marriage. Which is why marriage was seen as something so sacred. It's the harsh truth, especially when it comes to sleeping with people you're not married to, which I find is often swept under the carpet even in traditional subs like RPW.

[–][deleted] 55 points56 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Don’t live together, don’t take on his debts, don’t buy a pet together, don’t get matching tattoos, don’t try to “change him” so he becomes marriage-worthy (in marriage you both need to adapt so as to grow together and be healthy, but if you are dating a douche then you’re dating a douche. He’s not a fixer-upper. He’s a lemon).

Don’t create a fantasy relationship or “play house” where are acting wife-y because it is entertaining but you are paying zero attention to his reactions or contributions. As in, he could be a deadbeat, lazy, unromantic dingus and you are dressing nice, cleaning up after him, taking lunch to his work, and daydreaming while he’s away.

[–]bitchbaby17 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

He’s not a fixer-upper. He’s a lemon

love it

[–]frogswife25 points26 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's easier if you don't move in together. There's truth in the saying "why would he buy the cow if he's getting the milk for free?"

As a girlfriend you show that you have the ability to be a great wife, but until he's committed to be your husband he doesn't get that privilege. Another reason why I didn't have sex until marriage. ((Married 12 years to my captain, and a happy SAHM, with another little one on the way))

[–][deleted] 46 points47 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

The difference is living together. Many of the problems with cohabitation have little to do with morality. When you live together, you're sharing bills and space in a way that is best saved for marriage, simply because it is so hard to end things. I've met way too many people who stayed because moving out was too difficult. They were on a lease together or owned property or pets together. It's hard to leave a marriage, too. That's the point. The point of dating is to vet for marriage and a key to vetting is being able to walk away.

If you want to be a wife, don't move in until you have a ring.

[–]amadexodus14 points15 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I agree with this 100%. I also recommend mentioning this early on in your dating. My boyfriend knows that I won't move in with anybody unless there's an engagement and a set date.

I don't think there's anything wrong with staying for days (< 1 week) at a time at each other's places, just to be clear. If you're able to early on, I recommend it. Your relationship will look more like real life and less like a series of romantic dates. You'll also get to give him a preview of what you would (hopefully) be like as a wife without giving him a free pass to all that being a wife entails.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I totally agree. I used to spend a few days at a time with my husband and he'd occasionally stay with me if he was on a rig closer to my apartment. We didn't actually live together until the date was set, though, and that was more out of practicality, since the rent house we got was so much closer to my work (one hour vs. ten minutes). I was also too busy planning the dream wedding he had to have to really even see him most nights, so the adjustment period didn't kick in until after the wedding.

Presumably, if you're engaged, you're already committed enough that living together shouldn't be an issue, but if you have reservations about truly knowing who they are, outside of spending a few days together, I think it's reasonable to go ahead and make that leap. I found out nothing about my husband that would have made me reconsider, upon living together. If you're both honest adults, that really should be the case.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I accepted an assurance that certain domestic behaviours were down to a period of work stress and would not be a permanent feature of our domestic life.

That was not true and it was foolish of me to accept that assurance. If we had cohabited longer, the penny would have dropped that these were not transient behaviours and I would have sought appropriate counsel.

People enter marriage intending fully for it to be a lifetime commitment. I absolutely believe that. I am very keen on folk doing their due diligence before that commitment.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I accepted an assurance that certain domestic behaviours were down to a period of work stress and would not be a permanent feature of our domestic life.

That's the very definition of someone showing you who they are and ignoring it, which can happen at any phase of the relationship. I just don't see that as a defense for cohabitating. It's just as easy to ignore red flags throughout a relationship.

Edit: I'm not sure how you meant this comment. I read it as a reason to move in together before committing and then read your other comment.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I would say I would have picked up on troubling behaviours early enough if we had cohabited more than a few months, but on the other hand perhaps my youth and gullibility were to blame for my inaction. It’s a sobering thought.

I think we might be talking at cross purposes here though, so I apologise if so.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It takes guts to cancel a wedding. I know, because I didn't cancel mine at 19 and got divorced at 23. Kudos to you for having the nerve to do that.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, we got married the following year. My mother in law did not want us to marry at the appointed date due to a business with an inheritance and a potential tax liability for her, so I submitted and cancelled.

I felt the correct thing to do was maintain loyalty and await her go ahead for the next tax year. It’s not really a happening I dwell on. It was a strange occurrence.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. I would strongly advise that once you have a ring and a date, move in together.

It’s expensive and painful to cancel a wedding (ask me how I know) but it’s way more expensive and painful to divorce because the guy your boyfriend was on dates or weekends away turns out not to be the guy sitting sullenly on the sofa in his underwear on a Wednesday night, giving you the silent treatment from amongst a pile of crispy tissues.

Consider it a final practical compatibility exam.

[–]teaandtalk5 Stars3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think there's some middle ground to be found - not everyone wants to get engaged to someone they haven't lived with.

​

I lived with my husband early on in our relationship - but I wasn't on the lease, and we didn't own anything together, we didn't get pets, etc. Our home was that of two individuals collaborating, but not being dependent on, each other - so if we needed to separate, I'd go out and find an apartment, he'd have found a roommate, he'd have to buy a new sofa and I'd need a new fridge. It would have been annoying, but not difficult.

[–]just_a_mum9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the main differences are finances and dependencies. A gf would have separate finances and shouldn't be dependent on their bf.

[–]BonnieBelle2557 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I guess that’s a personal choice, since I would choose not to live with/sleep with a boyfriend, but others would disagree. Just thinking logically though, I would say this is the best strategy for the average woman to get what she wants (commitment). Why give up your side of the bargain before he gives up his side?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It’s not necessarily the best strategy, because there is a huge cultural and social factor there.

I understand the US has many communities which are very socially conservative and demonstrably religious. I also understand that in those communities, it is common and thought desirable that parties come to marriage virginal.

I am from the UK. Our culture is drastically different. If a man stated that he had a serious girlfriend but she would not have sex with him, his social circle would be overwhelmingly likely to consider this a bright red flag and would without question suggest to him that his girlfriend was either closeted or suffering a significant mental health issue. Given that the UK completely lacks the US ‘purity culture’, there is a fair chance either interpretation would be correct.

The idea, in my culture and social circles, that a man would actually marry a woman who had completely refused him sex up till that point, would be the subject of open ridicule. It would be like buying a car that had no engine installed.

So, in some places, it could well be a great strategy. In other circumstances, it could be a disastrous failure. So much RP advice needs to be viewed through the prism of the culture you are operating in.

[–]BonnieBelle2551 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Good point! I guess I was just thinking from the perspective of my culture in the US.

[–]The_Adm0n7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Traditionally, the line has been sex and cohabitation. But with those becoming the norm for unmarried couples, the only line anymore is really just a piece of paper and checking a different box on your tax forms.

It's kind of depressing, really. That state that marriage is in these days.

[–]ManguZa1 Star35 points36 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

Some women are married but never act as a wife (sometimes not even as a girlfriend). Same thing with men. It's not about marriage it's about the intensity of commitment between the two people.

Whatever the situation, if you're truly commited towards each other you're his women and he's your man.

[–]thesillymachine11 points12 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

Except, marriage is the biggest commitment move you can make. Deciding to marry someone and proposing is one of the most romantic things ever.

[–]ManguZa1 Star1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I think that moving together, choosing to have kids, etc are much bigger commitment than marriage. And marriage is often only romantic for the woman.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

It's the intention behind any of these things that makes them a commitment, big or small.

Moving in together as a trial period or because one of you is suddenly homeless isn't really a commitment, at least in an emotional sense. Neither is an oopsie baby a commitment to the relationship.

If you chose to take these steps intentionally and in lieu of marriage then yes they are indications of commitment to be together.

[–]thesillymachine2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Technically, you are correct. Given that we're talking about romantic relationships, in which folks obviously greatly care for each other, romance is a key factor.

If I go to an animal shelter and decide to get a dog, I am making a significant commitment. If things don't work out with this dog, I don't have to go through a (sometimes) lengthy legal process to be free of this dog.

No one moves in with someone with the intention of breaking up in 6 months. I consider a lack of commitment in a long term, serious relationshipto be a red flag. What happened to boundaries in today's society? Why can't women say "work through your issues and when you're ready we can get married and move in together."

Yes, some folks combine their finances and all that when they live with boyfriends, but it doesn't mean everyone does. Not even all wives combine their finances with their husbands. Where those things do matter, it's not the important part. What's important is the relationship. Marriage specifically is a commitment and level-up in the relationship, the highest tier.

Just because you're a RPW, does not mean you can't respect yourself and insist on a ring before moving in with a man. In fact, I think it's a very good idea to do this because of all that we do for our men.

[–]ManguZa1 Star0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

With that state of mind, what a men should insist to have before proposing?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

My point was that doing things with intention is what signals commitment, not necessarily the acts themselves. I was responding to the idea that children and cohabitation are higher levels of commitment. All indications of commitment are determined by the individuals and the intentions they put into the actions.

I know a woman who had her marriage annulled after her husband left her. The reasoning used was that in pre cana (pre marriage) counseling, he had told the priest that he didn't believe marriage was forever. This man was not truly committed to the woman, his intentions were never to stay with her forever, even though he went through the legal process.

Marriage is nearly always the dominant strategy for women. That doesn't change the fact that in individual relationships, we have to make choices based around the current market place. You can certainly say "I will not live with a man before marriage". A man can also say "I will not marry a woman without living with her first". Who gives first (and who should give first) is going to vary with the details of the relationship.

I'm not sure why you perceive a lack of self respect in my answers but I'd caution you against a relationship where you hold all the cards, which is what it sounds like you are saying. My husband does as much for me as I do for him. If you choose a relationship where you get to set the course then you are no longer the 'first mate' and there are likely to be respect and hypergamy issues down the road.

[–]thesillymachine1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I did understand. I respectfully disagree.

If they cannot agree on whether to live together before marriage or not, then you have differing views/beliefs and likely are incompatible.

I used to believe that people would divorce for selfish reasons, like "no longer being in love", but then I heard real people's stories and understood that my thinking was naive. There are many reasons people divorce and a lot of different ways one can be abused. One can theorize all they want, but divorces are not clear-cut.

I perceive women who cannot wait to live with a man before marriage having a lack of self respect, especially in the RP world. I can easily see how one can find themselves trapped in an abusive relationship because everything they do is for the man and to respect him. Demanding a level of respect up front is, in my opinion, an excellent way to find a spouse who will not be abusive in that way.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think that it's quite a stretch to go from cohabitation to divorce and abuse.

I'll be honest, while I understand a bit of what you are saying, I don't understand how it's connected to any of what I said about intentional decisions within a relationship context.

But I can't agree that making trade offs, in relationships in particular or life in general, show a lack of self respect which is mostly what I'm getting is your opinion.

[–]thesillymachine0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The point was that by setting the boundary you're potentially avoiding abuse down the road because you know he can show you respect by waiting to live with you until marriage. Being able to establish boundaries with your SO is also a good thing to know you can do. Boundaries are healthy. Showing these traits to your potential husband are also good.

I'm saying marriage is more than a simple commitment. It's a mindset. I explain it a bit better in another comment.

[–]Embarrassed-Draft0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Marriage is a bigger commitment than having children? Or dropping out of school or quitting your job forever?

[–]helgathehorriblez0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not true. Many many marriages fail. It’s almost as big of a commitment as leasing a vehicle. Sure, you can change it up... but if the car is comfy and fits your butt, you’ve finally learned all it’s bells and whistles... you can opt to keep it. You still have to do all the work on it while you’re leasing... but then sometimes you just decide you’d like the newer model and so the cycle begins again. Before leasing was a thing, you test drove everything, saved up your money and didn’t do the deed until you were sure you were satisfied being locked down to it for many many years. New models weren’t put out very often and you were secure in your investment. Now... most people don’t keep their cars that long and I know quite a few people who have never had the same vehicle with each of their husbands. It really is just that easy.

[–]thesillymachine1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, and for many horrible reasons. Just because divorces happen, does not mean that we should downplay how awful they are, not in the least.

[–]young_x-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

A wise man just said marriage is legal and not romance.

Deciding to marry someone and proposing is one of the most romantic things ever.

If so, why are so many women seeking marriage adamant that it wouldn't be romantic for them to propose?

There's a lot of assumptions to untangle from that knot.

[–]thesillymachine2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There is legality involved. It's all quite interesting. That doesn't quite explain how wanting to take that legal commitment isn't romantic.

When I read his comment I got a very big vibe that his views are towards teaching his daughter some importance of the seriousness that marriage is, and solely from a financial standpoint.

Marriage is so much more than finances and a piece of paper. That is what some other commenters are trying to say with their comparisons to commitment, such as moving in, having a child, buying a house, ect. Marriage is a commitment to love someone till death due us part. It means, no matter what. Love is so much more than an emotion, having a child together, buying a house, or moving in with someone. Love is always respecting, caring, staying even when you don't like that person. Love is commitment and marriage is the ultimate commitment move.

Edit: I forgot to add this. In a marriage with children, the marriage should come first. Yes, you have to take care of basic needs, but the children should not come before your spouse.

[–]young_x-1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think if you'd attempted to answer my question you'd get closer to understanding his point, primarily because you're basing your viewpoint on assumptions that you're not challenging.

Marriage is so much more than finances and a piece of paper. That is what some other commenters are trying to say with their comparisons to commitment, such as moving in, having a child, buying a house, ect. Marriage is a commitment to love someone till death due us part. It means, no matter what. Love is so much more than an emotion, having a child together, buying a house, or moving in with someone. Love is always respecting, caring, staying even when you don't like that person. Love is commitment and marriage is the ultimate commitment move.

All of that is well and good and possibly even ideal, but just because you might believe that or I might believe that doesn't make it so.

[–]redwatch9534 points35 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

Gf- cooks on special dates Wife- organises most meals (depending on how chores are split) and shares grocery/meal prep plans with their partner.

Gf- helps pick out a sofa or curtains by making suggestions or comes along for the shopping trip Wife- equal vote on interior design. Empathises with partners preferences they come to a compromise

Gf- does laundry as a sweet gesture Wife- has a laundry schedule that fits the partnership

Gf- splits meals, he sometimes pays, no financial commitment to each other Wife- comingled finances and a long term financial plan

Just a few examples. Hope this helps.

[–]teaandtalk5 Stars28 points29 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The problem with this is that a lot of what you've mentioned as 'wife' behaviour would also be the behaviour of a live-in girlfriend. Once people are cohabitating, things like laundry and groceries and cleaning and interior design become both of your responsibilities.

[–]redwatch9522 points23 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Isn’t it in this subs opinion better not to move in together before engagement or marriage? I could be mistaken ...

[–]teaandtalk5 Stars0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The sub doesn't have opinions, it's a webpage :P many would, but many wouldn't agree with that point. I lived with my husband before engagement, and we shared those things! But there were also things we didn't share - finances, possessions, pets, property.

[–]Thyra-[S] 7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

I live with my bf, its impractical to not have a meal plan or for just one of us to do laundry while the other does another chore like dishes. Seems like the line is almost too blurry for those who live with one another.

[–]Sobinia21 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

If you are taking risks that could affect the rest of your life for this guy, such as having children, quittimg your job or school, then you are playing wife.

[–]WhatIsThisAccountFor3 Star10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I think most of this sub would also consider a difference between wife and girlfriend as living together or not living together.

[–]Sobinia0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

IMO, cohabitating without marriage isn't that bad, as long as you aren't making decisions that might affect the rest of your life (having a child, taking debt for your SO, etc.) because of that person. Living with someone before the wedding can help you learn about his habits, weather or not you can take spending most of your days with him and if he's a good match for you on a day-to-day basis.

[–]bitchbaby12 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

if you dont mind me asking, have you talked to him about why he hasnt proposed to you yet?

[–]teaandtalk5 Stars1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You're in a complex situation, being polyam IIRC. A lot of the things discussed here won't necessarily apply to you, and you need to be careful not to take that to mean that everything doesn't. Even if some things don't apply (eg "being married means not sleeping with anyone else"), others do (eg "do not have children with someone with whom you have no legal arrangement").

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

There is a lot of room for personal choice in this question.

The key, I think, is to not tie yourselves together in a way that cannot be easily undone until you have the legal protections of marriage. This means don't buy a house, don't combine bank accounts, don't buy him a car or let him buy you a car in his name. Things like that.

Also, take care to maintain your friendships and family relationships. Take guidance and advice from him but he's not fully responsible for your life choices and their outcomes, you are.

Make sure your contributions to the relationship are acceptable to you and reciprocal. A marriage is something that is in addition to the individual parts where you are both working for the goals of the family. In a relationship, you can be working towards the same goals but realize that at any time either party can decide to walk. Therefore, you must make sure the goals benefit you as the individual as well.

[–]teaandtalk5 Stars2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I believe the first time my husband and I talked about marriage in the non-abstract was when we were talking about houses. I recall it going something like this.

"I mean, we could buy one", he said.

"Yeah, for sure. I don't want to buy a house with someone I'm not married to though." I replied.

"Sounds reasonable."

Highly romantic people, we are :P but at the same time, marriage IS about practicalities in many ways.

[–]sodarnclever3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The line normally said is “ I do”.....

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Best of luck to you!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Username checks out :)

[–]simmingslytherin9 points10 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

so i agree with you and everyone in the comments: it is personal, there are many different answers. here is mine :)

my boyfriend and i have been living together for 5 years now. we are very committed to each other and plan on spending the rest of our lives together. we are not religious so: why do we want to get married at all?

for me, i want to get married when/before i'm ready to start a family. not just for legal reasons but because i want my kid to have married parents. and i want our family to share the same last name... little things like that.
for my boyfriend, he said that he wants to marry me to show the world that i am claimed :D and i guess that's part of it too. being married makes it easier to communicate the nature of your relationship to other people: that it's serious, that it's forever.

[–]onlysomewanttofly8 points9 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

You need to read my other post.

Marriage and it’s legal benefits and obligations are not “little things like that.”

[–]simmingslytherin4 points5 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

to me they're little things compared to the very big, important thing which is spending the rest of my life with the person i love :)

[–]onlysomewanttofly9 points10 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

I’m afraid you have that backwards.

Love and feelings and romance etc are the little things in the scheme of things.

Feelings come and go and even wax and wane throughout the day.

One may love someone and want to be with them forever on Monday but hate them by Thursday. They may even meet someone they’d rather be with by Friday.

A “commitment “ is only a commitment until it is not. We live in a free society where an adult can basically come and go and do as they please.

Someone can promise you the world on their knees and tears in their eye one day and take off with someone else the next.

A marital contract does not stop someone from walking away or deciding they no longer want to be with you.

But what it does do is provide a legal framework to where there is a legal process to determine the division of assets and properties and to protect the support and care of children as well as protect the parental rights and obligations of each parent.

In that bigger picture, it is actually feelings and people’s words that are “the little things.”

[–]Hammocknapping3 Stars2 points3 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

There is a legal framework to divide assets and properties among non-married persons. There are wills, trusts, life estates and all sorts of creative ways to ensure your “stuff” goes to who you wish. People own prosperities with others they aren’t married to all the time. There are processes to deal with that as well. And, courts will still take child custody cases if the parents were never married.

The courts aren’t just there for people who are married.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Marriage takes care of all the legal issues in one go but it's certainly not the only way to go about it. The gay community did it for years before marriage was legalized for them. But we also shouldn't pretend that most cohabitating couples bother to go through the leg work.

In my mind the real line is not married/not married it's 'decided to tie ourselves together vs individuals in a relationship'. It's easier to discuss it in terms of married/not married because that's the way the way most people understand it.

[–]Hammocknapping3 Stars0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

While I would always recommend taking precautions on the front end, it isn’t entirely necessary. I think having children is a great example. You don’t need to be married to have children. In fact, unmarried fathers don’t have to deal with the issues around implied paternity. An unmarried father can have a paternity test done before he files for recognition of paternity and if it comes back negative (I’ve read some wild studies where it’s like 1/5 at hospitals), the he can walk away from mom and baby. For a married father, that will likely take years to do (if ever).

It’s very common for non-married persons to own assets together. The courts are prepared to handle these issues even if no protections were taken on the front end of things.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't think that sliding into parenthood by accident or into a pseudo-marriage because you are too complacent to make changes is a solid start to either of those endeavors.

It's unsurprising that there would be a high rate of negative paternity tests when they are taken. That's not an indication of rampant paternity fraud within marriage, it's an indication that the men who have reasons to suspect their partners have been unfaithful are justified in their suspicions.

The outcomes for children are quite different in marriage or out and there are certainly higher risks to the children when you have single parent families. I doubt many single parents would say it's easier on them (the parent) to not have a partner. So yeah, you don't even need a relationship to have a kid, but that doesn't make it a good decision.

And owning assets together also should be done with intention too. There are different ownership types to ensure each person in protected in the even of dissolution or death.

I simply don't see how it's in anyone's best interest to let life happen to you instead of making conscious choices. You can't guarantee the courts will be in your favor or that you will have the cash on the back end to deal with things through the courts. One of the theorized reasons that marriage is better than cohabitation is because of the lack of intention behind most cohabitation.

[–]Hammocknapping3 Stars0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I’ll see if I can find a public link to the study, but the study I referenced was about men who signed birth certificates at the hospital, which includes married men. These paternity tests were done as a part of a study and not at the request of the father. The men participating thought they were the father.

Additionally, studies regarding the family structure rarely inspect public records to ensure that participants are actually legally married. There was no risk in doing so, so my husband and I checked that we were married on our Census document. The question was worded in such a way that that was the appropriate answer.

When you buy a car with someone or a house or a boat or a dog, you do it intentionally. You may not put hours of research into the purchase ( for example, my husband bought our house in all cash after looking at it once because it “felt” right), but I don’t know anyone who has ever slid into or accidentally bought a house, and the same goes with signing a lease.

Also, there’s no guarantees on how a court will rule in a family law case even if the parties were married. While many states have formulas, the judge has a considerable amount of discretion.

Marriage doesn’t require a lot of though and commitment. Britney Spears is not alone in her Vegas wedding.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Marriage doesn’t require a lot of though and commitment. Britney Spears is not alone in her Vegas wedding.

No and that's why I said somewhere above that for any type of commitment it's the intention and not exclusively the act. Marriage can absolutely be done in a manner that is incongruent with it being "the highest level of commitment" as someone called it.

I'd be interested in the paternity study if you do put your hands on it.

[–]onlysomewanttofly0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

That is correct.

However marriage carries a legally recognized foundation and framework that goes back thousands of years and is well established.

[–]Hammocknapping3 Stars1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Property rights go back thousands of years as well. Divorce law certainly doesn’t go back thousands of years, unless we count accounts of stoning people to death.

You do not need to enter into a contract with the government to live life as a married couple. You can do all the same things a married couple does and have even better protection without the marriage contract, because the couple can actually negotiate what goes into the contract instead of having the government decide!

[–]simmingslytherin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

i was about to reply but you basically said everything there :)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

“One may love someone and want to be with them forever on Monday but hate them by Thursday.“

Sir, I can tell you have enjoyed a long marriage, particularly over numerous holiday seasons

[–]simmingslytherin0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

But what it does do is provide a legal framework to where there is a legal process to determine the division of assets and properties and to protect the support and care of children as well as protect the parental rights and obligations of each parent.

i'm aware. but that's not really marriage you're describing, it's divorce. and of course that's still real and relevant. but i don't want to trap my boyfriend and make it more difficult for him to leave if he wanted to, and i don't want to be trapped either, that's not why we want to get married.
it probably varies from country to country but at least where i live you can marry someone and not share assets and properties, and have separate bank accounts, so non of that has to be a part of marriage at all if you don't want it to be.
again, all of that is important, but to me my relationship is more important than any of that. if we never got married that wouldn't change much for me.

but as i said it's different for everyone. you don't have to prove me wrong. if this is how you feel then that's valid :)

[–]onlysomewanttofly0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is long but please read.

I’m not going to try to prove you wrong because I agree with you and agree where you are coming from.

I too want my wife to be able to leave if she no longer loves me or wants to be with me.

I know that is bass ackwards from the way most men think but I do not want her to remain with me or be stuck with me because she could not support herself or be able to uphold her share of the child rearing responsibility if we split.

She herself would have been perfectly happy and content to be a housewife and SAHM.

I was the one that insisted that she finish her education and become a gainfully employed professional.

I have always insisted on separate bank accounts, 401ks, credit cards, separate vehicles etc etc.

I want that either one of us is capable of packing up and walking out at any time if the other becomes intolerable or abusive or a drunk etc etc.

I want each day together to be a free will choice and not be stuck.

That level of separation can only go so far in the eyes of the law however. It may factor significantly in any settlement but in the eyes of the law, the default legal presumption is that they are one legal and financial entity.

But my answer is still the same - you have to be a functional and self-supporting individual first.

Whether you are a hook up, date, GF or wife, you need to be self sustaining and functional to where you don’t “need” the other and either of you can pull the ejection handle and bail out at any time if there is something taking place that is unacceptable.

The relationship should be free choice but marriage still legally recognizes the union and provides protections and processes that go beyond who gets what in a divorce.

So the lines should not be blurry.

What separates GF from wife is legal recognition and obligation to follow the legal framework and process in the event of serious illness, death , divorce, debt, windfall etc etc The vows of sickness/health, richer/poorer, death etc are literal and applied in legal context.

That is what separates a GF from a wife.

[–]onlysomewanttofly0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is long but please read.

I’m not going to try to prove you wrong because I agree with you and agree where you are coming from.

I too want my wife to be able to leave if she no longer loves me or wants to be with me.

I know that is bass ackwards from the way most men think but I do not want her to remain with me or be stuck with me because she could not support herself or be able to uphold her share of the child rearing responsibility if we split.

She herself would have been perfectly happy and content to be a housewife and SAHM.

I was the one that insisted that she finish her education and become a gainfully employed professional.

I have always insisted on separate bank accounts, 401ks, credit cards, separate vehicles etc etc.

I want that either one of us is capable of packing up and walking out at any time if the other becomes intolerable or abusive or a drunk etc etc.

I want each day together to be a free will choice and not be stuck.

That level of separation can only go so far in the eyes of the law however. It may factor significantly in any settlement but in the eyes of the law, the default legal presumption is that they are one legal and financial entity.

But my answer is still the same - you have to be a functional and self-supporting individual first.

Whether you are a hook up, date, GF or wife, you need to be self sustaining and functional to where you don’t “need” the other and either of you can pull the ejection handle and bail out at any time if there is something taking place that is unacceptable.

The relationship should be free choice but marriage still legally recognizes the union and provides protections and processes that go beyond who gets what in a divorce.

So the lines should not be blurry.

What separates GF from wife is legal recognition and obligation to follow the legal framework and process in the event of serious illness, death , divorce, debt, windfall etc etc The vows of sickness/health, richer/poorer, death etc are literal and applied in legal context.

That is what separates a GF from a wife.

[–]amadexodus3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The main line people seem to be mentioning here is living together. I would also add a financial boundary: Don't let him spend too much on you. A few hundred dollars on concert tickets for the two of you or a beautiful birthday/holiday gift is fine. But don't let it get to the point where he's helping you with major purchases (e.g. a car) or covering living expenses (e.g. rent). Until you're locked, you should be paying for those things.

[–]Hammocknapping3 Stars2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The biggest difference between dating and legal marriage for most couples is that you never really know if your spouse wants to be with you or if it’s just too much of a hassle to leave.

When you’re dating, you’re lives are running on parallel tracks. They’re headed in the same direction, but they aren’t intertwined. While separating may be difficult emotionally, it can typically be done in a relatively quick manner. When you’re dating, your partner is putting in effort because they want to not because they feel contractually obligated to.

When you’re legally married, you will never truly know if your partner is with you because they want to be or if they are with you because it is too difficult to leave. Marriage is like a severely tangled necklace chain. It’s extremely difficult to untangle and you’ll likely need professional help getting the knots upon knots out. Marriage is work, but it’s difficult to tell if your spouse is putting that work in as a labor of love or because they don’t want to lose half of their stuff and potentially their children.

Except for tax benefits (which many couples will never realize anyway) you can obtain all the other legal rights conveyed through legal marriage with a couple of quick legal documents. A power of attorney, medical directives, wills/trusts/life estates, housing agreements, etc. You can also ensure paternity and 50/50 custody at birth, which married fathers can’t do.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I want to add a heavy rider here that this depends on the jurisdiction and this requires careful research before opting for this route.

Certainly in my own jurisdiction, there are various legal rights open to married couples that are deliberately not open to cohabitees and because they are statutory rights, no private contractual arrangement can give those.

It’s also the case in my jurisdiction that an unmarried father who signs the birth certificate has the same full rights as a married father.

[–]Hammocknapping3 Stars0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

That is correct. I know you’re in the UK, but in the US this mostly rings true in every state. There may be some slight differences from state to state, but the same common law principles apply.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I always hurry to add that rider because of the vast number of people who have confidently told me that “X can’t happen if we are not married”, oh but it can. Then you see the penny drop.

I know that you have your affairs very much in order, so please don’t think that was a comment aimed at you. I was throwing it out for anyone reading along.

[–]Hammocknapping3 Stars0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

There really is no benefit left to marriage in the US. It’s great for lazy couples who don’t want to make other arrangements, but they just end up having to deal with everything on the backend when they get divorced.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

forget girlfriend that word is new.

[–]HumanSockPuppetTRP Founder-3 points-2 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

There is no meaningful distinction between a girlfriend and a wife.

A wife is just a girlfriend who persuaded her boyfriend that she would never screw him over in the event of a divorce.

Other than a small tax benefit available in certain countries, there is no material advantage to being wife over being a girlfriend. Unless, of course, you plan on screwing your partner over with a divorce. Then there's a huge distinction.

[–]teaandtalk5 Stars1 point2 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

You don't have to want to "screw your partner over with a divorce" to want to be protected against someone else screwing you over in a divorce.

This is why people consider TRP to be anti-woman, when a TRP founder comes into a women's space and can't POSSIBLY acknowledge that there are valid reasons why women might not want to give up their careers and physical health (ie through pregnancy and childrearing) for a man with no real assurances he won't leave her destitute.

[–]HumanSockPuppetTRP Founder0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

You don't have to want to "screw your partner over with a divorce" to want to be protected against someone else screwing you over in a divorce.

There are RPW strategies for protecting yourself from betrayal by a man that don't involve treating him like an adversary.

Men have a strong instinct to protect women. Your best approach is to tap into this by approaching him with kindness, vulnerability, and trust.

It's hard to get a man to see you as vulnerable if your strategy involves covertly treating him like an adversary.

when a TRP founder comes into a women's space

Butting heads with a person who created this space for you isn't a good way to make your point. Don't make this about you and me.

[–]teaandtalk5 Stars1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Your best approach is to tap into this by approaching him with kindness, vulnerability, and trust.

So your contention is that women should be kind and vulnerable and trust, and hope that they've vetted thoroughly enough that he won't leave her broke and with illegitimate children? Especially when factoring in that women's best chance for finding a HVM to father their children is dating while young, this seems like a recipe for disaster unless you're already in a society with heavy (social) penalties for leaving a woman you've impregnated - which most of us are not.

What would you say would be the best strategy for women to protect themselves from betrayal without tapping into the legal protections of marriage?

[–][deleted]  (3 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]teaandtalk5 Stars0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

He's a long time TRP contributor/founder, I'm not going to discount his advice just because it doesn't match my own. I do want to hear what he has to say.

[–]WhisperTRP Founder0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You've tasted him? That's disturbing.

[–]LuckyLittleStarModerator | Lil'Star[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

We'll have none of that.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Off topic

[–][deleted] -15 points-14 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

There's no difference.

[–]YEAHbunsNthighs6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

No difference between dating and marriage then?

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Could you elaborate on this please.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The only difference is a legal document. It's impossible to say what the difference between a girlfriend and a wife is besides that because it's such a individual & personal question. Also think a lot of the replies are quite offensive. Saying a girlfriend only cooks every once in awhile but a wife does most of the cooking is ridiculous. What about people who live together and have kids together but aren't married?

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you. This was reported and the brief nature of the comment made it difficult to understand your reasoning.

[–]onlysomewanttofly1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh Buddy.

Much to learn this one has.

[–][deleted]  (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No snark

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter